A man was shot and killed. Why not let a jury decide whether or not the shooting was justifiable? How, in any way, does that implicate PVG? What would a "career" prosecutor do differently?
Should the case have pleaded out before trial? If the case resolved prior to trial, then you would say that PVG and his deputies are spineless.
Please, at least have some congruity in your thoughts.
Let me see, the defendant in this matter was pepper sprayed and assaulted by the victim and his son a week before the incident. They barge into the defendant's house and threaten to kill the guy who is on trial. He responds (badly - very badly) and victim is killed. Son of victim who is as whacked out on meth as his father rams his truck thru defendants fence.
Defendant gets charged and the son gets immunity from attacking defendant the week before.
Shit, this is getting pretty bizarre if you ask me.
Especially that the guy is charged with first degree murder and the prosecutor says he will take second degree murder. Why not just try him for voluntary manslaughter because it looks pretty heat of passion to me given the threats.
And can somebody explain to me how it is ethical and right to try someone for something that you don't believe that you can prove. I am not getting it.
I sure don't think that this guy should walk. He killed the guy and it sounds that the guy may have been leaving at the time. But with what I just read in the paper, how the hell do you believe the 'victims" son who admittedly lied to the cops, was part of the assault, had assaulted the defendant before, and sounds like he's making things up on the stand. I hate to say this but the guy who was shot sounds worse than the shooter.
How the hell did this community get this way? This has just got to stop.
And best of all, a son who won't testify against the guy who killed his dad unless he gets immunity? Now there's a fine figure of a man. Apple fell pretty close to the meth tree.
As I understand it, there was actually no evidence that the victim's son was ever involved in spraying the defendant with pepper spray - only speculation. The immunity agreement explicitly did not immunize the son from perjury. This is a very young man who was frightened at seeing his father about to be executed and drove through the yard to try to stop his dad from being shot - in his panic he ended up running over his father (after his father had been shot repeatedly by the defendant) and hitting the defendant. That appeared to the be the real purpose behind it - that he would get immunity for leaving the scene of an accident.
If the facts support the charge of murder then there is no ethical issue with bringing the charge. The defendant is charged with murder; not '1st degree murder' or '2nd degree murder' just murder.
Shame on the 3:19p. You do not know this family, nor do you know what they have been through.
BTW, it's a dangerous thing to rely only on local media to report things fully and accurately. What's the old saying...Don't believe anything you read and only half of what you see?
Also, 10:33am - the defendant is charged under Penal Code 187 - Penal Code 189 governs the degrees of murder. The People's theory as I understand it is one of 2nd degree murder based on the level of 'malice' of the defendant's actions.
Was it an accurate report that the son said he'd never seen his dad do meth? 'Cause that doesn't really add up.
Look - I didn't post it as criticism, just that it's what's happening now in the DA news. Since Gallegos is the arbiter of what charges are filed, no matter who he wants to blame, it sounds like this is getting more interesting.
I think it's a sad case all around. Defendant stole firewood from the victim; victim confronts defendant; defendant agrees to pay for the firewood; victim goes to defendant's house later the same day to confront him again and is killed. Just seems like it's crazy all the way around - but at the end of the day Mr. Dowdy chose to use a firearm and killed someone in the process.
3:19 here for 838. Immunity NEVER covers perjury, ok? So that cuts no ice. If there was no evidence the kid did anything bad, his insistence on immunity for defending his father's name is even more pathetic. To put the DA in the position of having to immunize their "best" witness, handing the defense some highly effective cross and argument, is not a badge of honor, no matter what you have "been through". Unless, of course, there's some fire under that smoke. Coming from Daddy's meth pipe.
Blair Angus is a pretty good lawyer. If we had to have a defense lawyer as DA, too bad it wasnt' her.
ReplyDeleteYes, I think that maybe a true prosecutor would work better. I am done with defense attorneys.
ReplyDeleteJust a compassionate and knowledgeable da thank you very much.
well, I hear there is a prospect in the wings, maybe. cross fingers.
ReplyDeleteHow are your comments relevant?
ReplyDeleteA man was shot and killed. Why not let a jury decide whether or not the shooting was justifiable? How, in any way, does that implicate PVG? What would a "career" prosecutor do differently?
Should the case have pleaded out before trial? If the case resolved prior to trial, then you would say that PVG and his deputies are spineless.
Please, at least have some congruity in your thoughts.
well, immunizing the kid was an interesting move.
ReplyDeleteLet me see, the defendant in this matter was pepper sprayed and assaulted by the victim and his son a week before the incident. They barge into the defendant's house and threaten to kill the guy who is on trial. He responds (badly - very badly) and victim is killed. Son of victim who is as whacked out on meth as his father rams his truck thru defendants fence.
ReplyDeleteDefendant gets charged and the son gets immunity from attacking defendant the week before.
Shit, this is getting pretty bizarre if you ask me.
Especially that the guy is charged with first degree murder and the prosecutor says he will take second degree murder. Why not just try him for voluntary manslaughter because it looks pretty heat of passion to me given the threats.
And can somebody explain to me how it is ethical and right to try someone for something that you don't believe that you can prove. I am not getting it.
I sure don't think that this guy should walk. He killed the guy and it sounds that the guy may have been leaving at the time. But with what I just read in the paper, how the hell do you believe the 'victims" son who admittedly lied to the cops, was part of the assault, had assaulted the defendant before, and sounds like he's making things up on the stand. I hate to say this but the guy who was shot sounds worse than the shooter.
ReplyDeleteHow the hell did this community get this way? This has just got to stop.
And best of all, a son who won't testify against the guy who killed his dad unless he gets immunity?
ReplyDeleteNow there's a fine figure of a man.
Apple fell pretty close to the
meth tree.
As I understand it, there was actually no evidence that the victim's son was ever involved in spraying the defendant with pepper spray - only speculation. The immunity agreement explicitly did not immunize the son from perjury. This is a very young man who was frightened at seeing his father about to be executed and drove through the yard to try to stop his dad from being shot - in his panic he ended up running over his father (after his father had been shot repeatedly by the defendant) and hitting the defendant. That appeared to the be the real purpose behind it - that he would get immunity for leaving the scene of an accident.
ReplyDeleteIf the facts support the charge of murder then there is no ethical issue with bringing the charge. The defendant is charged with murder; not '1st degree murder' or '2nd degree murder' just murder.
Shame on the 3:19p. You do not know this family, nor do you know what they have been through.
BTW, it's a dangerous thing to rely only on local media to report things fully and accurately. What's the old saying...Don't believe anything you read and only half of what you see?
ReplyDeleteAlso, 10:33am - the defendant is charged under Penal Code 187 - Penal Code 189 governs the degrees of murder. The People's theory as I understand it is one of 2nd degree murder based on the level of 'malice' of the defendant's actions.
Was it an accurate report that the son said he'd never seen his dad do meth? 'Cause that doesn't really add up.
ReplyDeleteLook - I didn't post it as criticism, just that it's what's happening now in the DA news. Since Gallegos is the arbiter of what charges are filed, no matter who he wants to blame, it sounds like this is getting more interesting.
I think it's a sad case all around. Defendant stole firewood from the victim; victim confronts defendant; defendant agrees to pay for the firewood; victim goes to defendant's house later the same day to confront him again and is killed. Just seems like it's crazy all the way around - but at the end of the day Mr. Dowdy chose to use a firearm and killed someone in the process.
ReplyDelete3:19 here for 838. Immunity NEVER covers perjury, ok? So that cuts no ice. If there was no evidence the kid did anything bad, his insistence on immunity for defending his father's name is even more pathetic. To put the DA in the position of having to immunize their "best" witness, handing the defense some highly effective cross and argument, is
ReplyDeletenot a badge of honor, no matter what you have "been through". Unless, of course, there's some fire under that smoke. Coming from Daddy's meth pipe.
Lookd like someone from the DA's office is blogging on county time. Don't mind it on their own time at night, but really, during office hours?
ReplyDelete